As you’ve seen here, State Senator Ginny Burdick has claimed that “scheduling conflicts” prevented her from attending her own Town Hall Meeting on Monday, March 4th at Portland State University. But as anyone who reads the political tea leaves knows, Burdick ditched her constituents because of the unpopularity of her anti gun bills (see my latest post about them here) and sh
e was too chicken to face their anger.
The woman who dismisses gun owners as “gun nuts” and “whackos” wonders why anyone would be upset at a lawmaker who calls for limiting constitutional rights (one of her bills limits the number you can own to one) and calls for cops to search your house once a year to see if you’re following the state’s gun rules. Imagine that.
Now she’s confirmed her previous explanation about “scheduling conflicts” was just a
lie uh, fairy tale and she’s now doubling down on her excuse saying she cancelled the event because she received, as she told KATU, “…”Th
ousands of threatening and hostile emails about anti-gun bills.”
I’ve asked the State Senator for police reports, texts, emails, tweets, facebook posts that have threatened her in the following email I sent to her office and posted on her facebook page.
To: State Senator Ginny Burdick
As a reporter, blogger, constituent of Senator Burdick, I am requesting all reports by the Senator and her staff to law enforcement and recordings, written communications, including texts, facebook messages, emails and tweets, and visual proof of threats she received prompting her to cancel her Town Hall meeting at Portland State University on March 4, 2013.
Ms. Burdick has made very serious allegations against people she has described recently in interviews and on her own facebook page as gun nuts and whackos. It’s necessary for her to substantiate her claims of threats and I look forward to reporting on the veracity of those claims.
Twitter: The Victoria Taft Show
Here is the screen cap of the request on her facebook page:
Burdick has shown KATU some of the emails she received and this is what KATU reported,
She sent KATU News a few examples. One talked about lynching, another mentioned Hitler and Stalin. Burdick says it would have been foolish to hold a town hall in that kind of environment on a college campus.
If KATU had seen overt threats to Burdick’s safety don’t you think that would have lead the story? That would have made the local papers? One would also assume that Burdick turned over the worst of the threats to prove to KATU that she had every legitimate reason to cancel her Town Hall! But we didn’t see the any threats reported.
Let’s take KATU’s examples provided by Burdick. “One talked about lynching.” Could we have some context of this word please? Is it in relation to second amendment rights given to all Americans so blacks and Republicans could defend themselves against lynchings? Is that the context? Why is the context not given? If this were perceived by KATU as an overt threat, would they not have shown the threat on TV? Threatening another person with bodily harm is a crime. They would have had a huge scoop. Someone would have been arrested!
Now, why would any emails mentioning Stalin and Hitler be perceived as an either a hostile or overt threat? Where is the context? Is the context that both Hitler and Stalin disarmed their citizens before beginning the systematic murders of millions of their own people? Why would Ginny Burdick perceive this historical fact as a personal threat to her? Was it accompanied by a threat of bodily harm? Wouldn’t KATU have shown the actual threat on camera? Why did they not show the threats if there were any?
Here are some of the screen caps I got from the KATU story:
And then she dismissed some of her own law abiding constituents by claiming they are “extremists” from the “gun lobby” who “crash” her Town Halls and are disruptive. Imagine that: people upset at a lawmaker who wants to take away their US Constitutional rights. Watch her comments in the story below.
Finally, Burdick said she did not want to have the meeting because she didn’t want to risk the “extremists” and “whackos” coming to a meeting at Portland State University. “I did not want to subject the students to [their disruptive and rude] behavior.” Isn’t she wonderful? She’s just trying to help “the children.” The children comprise the members of the Occupy black bloc, illegally camp out on public property, defy the law, poop on the American flag, and hector law abiding Tea Party folks with racist, homophobic hate speech? Those are children she’s concerned about?
So Senator, show me the threats.